The Sexual Trade Union

Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.

And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.

To feminists, and indeed, to the vast majority of the female sex who give feminists the power to speak on their behalf, morality is little more than ensuring the reproductive and sexual interests of a post peak fertility female who relies on heavy parental investment from a committed male partner. The extent of female desire for involvement in the political process is directly proportionate to the threat that women feel in a free sexual market.

Feminists tend to dislike Darwinism almost as much as the evangelical creationist does. Yet you could pretty much feed into a computer equipped with a Darwinian algorithm the reproductive needs of a 9 month labouring female simian in a sexual jungle and you would be pretty much guaranteed to find the computer would accurately predict EVERYTHING that a feminist finds ‘objectifying, exploitative, abusive etc.etc’.

The infamous Amanda (see posts below) takes umbrage at my description of her blog as a piece of sexual trade unionism. In fact every single one of her posts bears some relation to sex and reproduction seen through the eyes and vested interests of an unattractive post peak-fertility female. Even the title of her blog gives the game away.

If feminists like Amanda could point to just one cause of theirs that DECREASES their own individual sexual power (relative, for example, to that of a beautiful 18 year old) instead of INCREASING it, then I’d swallow my words. Anyone who thinks that will ever happen though, has probably never read the history of feminism, and certainly not its first or second wave origins.

A comment was posted below my ‘All Feminists are Rapists’ YouTube video the other day which made a very intelligent point that I’ve been meaning to discuss for some time :

“Traditional” right-wing religious women are EXACTLY the same as the left-wing feminists are. They just use different mumbo-jumbo to achieve the? same ends. For example, both ‘radical’ & ‘traditional’ women oppose any kind of sexual competition e.g. prostitution, pornography, etc. Feminists blabber about ‘patriarchy, equality…’ while right wing fems quote bible verses. Same b.s. different packaging.

And this, in essence, is the difference between somebody like Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton.

..And this is why, in my honest opinion, the men’s movement will likely never be more than a damage limitation exercise in terms of the steady erosion of men’s rights. Men have as many conceptions of justice and of what is important in life as there are stars in the sky. Women tend to have only one. And this is the case whether they are right or left, religious or atheist, conservative or ‘progressive’. Men debate the ends whereas women only ever dispute the means.

It is also why I am so sceptical of ‘sympathetic feminists’ or even, unfortunately, women per se joining our movement. Invariably, they are confused feminists, dimly aware that most women in their position are unhappier than ever, coupled with a vague awareness that this requires not more economic and political independence for women, but rather a simple closure of the free sexual market and a return to traditionalism. We, the men’s rights movement, are simply a means to achieving that selfish conservative end.

I don’t want to close on such pessimistic reflections. I still have faith that the ever increasing speed of technological progress will eventually render the sexual conflict between men and women obsolete and irrelevant. Feminism has always been about playing catch-up in the quest to stop new technology from widening the free sexual market and putting the sexual interests of unattractive women at risk. As progress speeds up, one must hope that this will become increasingly impossible. To take one example. Anyone with eyes and ears will have noticed a marked ‘return to puritanism’ over the last year alone with regard to the media witchunts of ‘cheating’ husbands such as Tiger Woods. Quite possibly, even probably, within a couple of decades, the majority of people, at least young people, will be aware that they can be expected to live to remarkably long ages. When people can expect to live to be 150, 200, perhaps much longer than that, what becomes of the idea of marriage and life-long commitment? Would we simply see a formalized acceptance of the mating patterns we are increasingly seeing today – a woman demands exclusive commitment from a man for a decade or two, then dumps him and takes the kids and a massive divorce pay off to another male? Hopefully not. At least, in the long run, even women might see that their primitive Savannah sexual codes will become increasingly irrelevant and out of place in an unimaginably altered high-tech future. Perhaps even they will demand, through genetic or pharmaceutical intervention if necessary, the God given ability of a man to partake in sexual pleasure without demanding that the object of desire becomes his exclusive instrumentalized property for life.

46 thoughts on “The Sexual Trade Union”

“Invariably, they are confused feminists, dimly aware that most women in their position are unhappier than ever, coupled with a vague awareness that this requires not more economic and political independence for women, but rather a simple closure of the free sexual market and a return to traditionalism.”

Dimly aware of the possibility that second wave feminism was a ‘corruption’ of feminism perpetrated by very clever men to get women to put out more and work for a living at the same time.

“Feminists tend to dislike Darwinism almost as much as the evangelical creationist does.”
I can think of at least 4 reasons why:
1) It allows men to understand women better than they understand themselves.
2) They probably resent the implication of Darwinism that emotional ways of thinking are actually more primitive than logic. (That emotions and instinct are really the same thing.)
3) They equally resent the idea that all of that emotional baggage they consider their ‘soul’ can be reduced down to a handful of evolutionary concepts.
4) Most importantly. Darwinian thought has always posed a danger to the ‘woman racket’. Armed with evolutionary psychology who’s going to listen to them when they claim that pornography and prostitution are harmful to women when it’s clear to the enlightened that the only ‘harm’ done to women is to lower their sexual market value enough to force the majority of them to have to work.

I’ve been reading some of these links about how feminism seems to have spun off of abolitionism and it got me wondering. Could they have been motivated by jealousy concerning the slave owners sexual access to young black women?
Could abolitionism itself have actually been more motivated by female sexual jealousy than any genuine altruism? (with the altruistic elements being ancillary)
Perhaps the American civil war can be framed in terms of ‘patriarchal’ south versus ‘proto-feminist’ north. (Even to this day the southern states remain the least feminized)

I’ll upset a lot of my readers for touching on this subject again, but I’ve sometimes idlly speculated whether, contrary to recieved wisdom, the black civil rights movement in the 60’s was powered by second wave feminism rather than the other way round – the reason being that the ‘newly sexually liberated’ white women wanted greater sexual access to black men.

Absolutely! Now that you mention it I don’t know why it never occured to me before.
And the pill would have meant ‘open season’ since their would be little risk of pregnancy back in an age when racism still meant considerable social stigma for a white mother of a black child.

When I was about 15 years old I was much more of a rabid feminist than I am now. Why? Because I constantly had old, rabidly ugly men hitting on me that I had absolutely no desire to talk to, sympathize with, and much less benefit from their ‘protection’. I would venture a guess that you are one of these ugly old farts.

Now that I am one of these old unappealing women at the age of 27, I am much less of a rabid feminist. Probably because all of the really repulsive men are hitting on teenagers and I can concentrate and dating men my age or just a few years younger or older.

Perhaps if it was 1/ true AND 2/ common, but we both know it’s neither and you just made that story up.

BTW, I’m in my 30’s, so probably not as old as you, and 9 out of 10 teenage girls in the street will look at me and fix their hair as I walk past. I avoid going in to fast food restaurants alone because I’ll get 15 year old girls sitting next to me and trying to seduce me.

One more BTW. I think nature is horrendously cruel to women, or at least in a free sexual market. I hope transhumanism can fix that, for the benefit of both men and women. However, I have no apologies for coming across as being ‘cruel’ to older women in this blog. What older women are doing to men (and their younger female rivals) is beyond evil, never mind cruel. And, ironically, what you’re doing is creating a generation of young people who are starting to see every older woman, as well as every man, in the subhuman terms you just took delight in describing, particularly now that the number of female ‘paedohiles’ is increasing, or increasingly being exposed.

You’re lucky that a few insulting words from a handful of men is the only backlash you’ve yet recieved.

I never said I wanted it as low as 12. And I think a system like Austria where the age of consent is 14, but only with parental approval (otherwise 16), is pretty fair.

I can understand the argument that a 40 year old man having a relationship with a 15 year old girl is potentially highly disruptive to the family unit (in terms of ‘dislodging’ the father). That, of course, is not an argument that feminists tend to use.

Another thing to add is that discussing the justness or otherwise of the age of consent isn’t necessarily about calling for it to be lowered, but about the increasingly draconian sentances for even minor infractions. In the UK psychopaths have been given a couple of years for raping babies, but the NSPCC wants any man sleeping with a 14 or 15 year old to be given a minimum 14 year sentance (14 for 14).

The point is, feminists were trying to raise the age of consent to 21 before they were even seriously considering campaigning for the vote. Secondly, they always made clear that winning the franchise was only a means to the end of legislating upon sexual morality.

BTW, I don’t think the moral principle you’re expressing (if you had a daughter…..etc) is a COMPLETE argument killer. Mayby if I had a child I wouldn’t want a homosexual living next door (if I had a certain bigoted view of homosexuals), or a black man (if I was racist and thought all black men were potential drug dealers).

“If you ever become a parent, I can guarantee you that you won’t want the age of consent to be as low as 12.”

You may be right, but I hope I don’t become an advocate of throwing others in prison, have their lives ruined, have them raped, for whatever is not actual assault or aggression, but just because it displeases me. I hope I also have more respect for the choices of my children, although I also think that is because I imagine having more time to teach them to think/judge correctly, rather than packing them off to mass schooling. Until then I am against a legal age of consent as dictated by a idiotic legislature all together.

I’ve sometimes idlly speculated whether, contrary to recieved wisdom, the black civil rights movement in the 60?s was powered by second wave feminism rather than the other way round

I’m not sure that that holds water. The historical chain of events appears to be that the Civil Rights movement came first, and was a mix of “genuine” black activists latched onto by second wave Communists- the “red diaper babies”- looking for a cause to use to revitalise their movement. Then with the success of that, the Civil Rights approach was used and extended by the second wave of feminism and other associated groups (e.g. gay rights). It’s strange to think now, but in the midst of the upheaval, groups who would now be called “paedophile” nearly got on the bandwagon!

FWIW, my own interpretation of the birth of second wave rad feminism was as a reaction against liberalism. These nicely brought up, upper class yankee and jewish girls arrived at college in an era when sexual liberalism was expected; their revulsion at sex- an “erotophobia”- led them to revive the puritan first wave of feminism under a new banner. The interesting point for me is that in that liberal college society, they needed to pretend not to be obviously puritan.

So whereas first wavers such as Jane Addams were openly anti-sex puritans, and proud of it, the second wavers instead pretended to be “lesbians” because being openly celibate erotophobes would have been too ridiculous. And thus, they had to drag the Gay Rights movement along for the ride. Andrea Dworkin is a particular type species of that, a “lesbian” who had no relationships with women and instead had a celibate marriage to a gay man. Not really a lesbian at all, just a sex-hating heterosexual woman.

The interesting thing for me is how this mindset developed. I think the MRA is in error in thinking that feminism is really representative of women. It seems to me to be a manifestation of the particular values of the anglosphere ruling class, that were heavily shaped by a rabidly resurgent puritan-derived protestantism from the late 18th century onwards, that created “Victorian Values” and was not representative of the views of the mass of women, but of particular upper class ones- the “angels in the house” trying to avoid the sexual attentions of their husbands and childbearing responsibilities. These values were then inflicted on everybody else.

Of course these values then spread to be held by most women (and men). That doesn’t mean they are natural values for women as a sex. I think as an analogy- in the Old South, all whites benefited from the Jim Crow laws. But most whites were not responsible for creating them, and rather easily let go of them when the time came. Only a small cadre of higher class whites created that legal environment. In the same way, to say that all women are in some way naturally rad fem is a mistake. They are taking advantage of the “sexual Jim Crow” because it benefits them, but anyone in an advantaged group will do that.

So I do think a subtlety of analysis is necessary. This isn’t men versus women- that is to mirror the feminist error. It is really most of us versus the puritan values of the ruling class, which are currently, sadly, going global after 200 years of agitation by the anglosphere superpowers, England and America.

Nearly, if not more than half of the 15 year olds in the UK had sex already.
I’m not one of the lucky ones.
And I am still a virgin and an incel at the age of 23, because of people like you.

What I should’ve done, is to learn how to sharpen my knives and underwent Male Initiation a long while back. Without it, I am still a “boy” and not a Man to some (unhindered) societies in this world, despite my physical age.

I don’t want to comment too much on what you’ve been saying, except that I basically agree with your assessment of the true (and utterly hypocritical) motivations of so many “feminists”. Even though I think that outlawing things like prostitution, child pornography and sex with 13-year old girls is a good thing, even if done for selfish motives.

I would like to mention, however, that there is another half to this story. What about unattractive men who can’t get laid? Ever watch those TV preachers, the ones for whom “sin”=sex? For some of them, all sin is sex-related — fornication, homosexuality, prostitution, abortion, even smoking and drinking (that’s what happens at bars, where people go to get laid). And if you watch those fundie preachers, you will notice that although the preacher himself is handsome, the audience is ucking FUGLY!!! And the preacher is just as likely as not to get caught, sooner or later, paying some prostitute to pee on him. I submit that a lot of religious fundamentalism is a desperation ploy by unattractive men to shame or terrify attractive men, to keep them from scarfing up all the poontang for themselves. And to justify their own boundless jealousy–“Well, he may be getting all the poontang NOW, but when he dies he’s gonna BURN BURN BURN! HAHAHA!!!” Sprinkle it all with holy dust, then cut and paste Bible verses onto it to justify sexual covetousness. It’s spiritual masturbation. Even the 9/11 hijackers were promised 72 virgins in heaven. One of them, Mohammad Atta, was seen at a strip bar a few days before 9/11. And the Navy SEALS recovered pornography at Bin Laden’s compound.

I say this as a genuine, dedicated Christian who believes that there’s nothing “sinful” about having sex with somebody you like, as long as you don’t have to betray anyone to do it.

I don’t approve of 14-year-old girls having sex, but I do wonder about your reasoning. Should people have to buy their way into the right to choose who they sleep with? If you went bankrupt, would that give the trustee of your bankruptcy estate the right to tell you who you can sleep with and who you can’t?

Why don’t you admit to yourself that you just simply love her, you don’t want some horny guy to break her heart, give her an STD or get her pregnant, and that you’re willing to use whatever leverage you have, including financial leverage, to protect her against her own youthful naivete? WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT??? You should be proud of yourself. What good father would do any less for his daughter? She’ll hate you for it now, but she’ll thank you before she turns 25, guaranteed. Guaranteed.

The mostly liberal religious feminists, along with assistance from lesbian radical spiritualist & atheist feminists in the pre-suffragette America & England could never have accomplished their demonization of natural universal male sexuality from the Cro-Magnon days till the Cowboy days without a significant percentage of prominent clergy, or as the former editor of Psychology Today magazine refered to them “The Sunday morning gasbags (breaking forth their flatulence of ignorance & intolerance) in regard to their furious denunciations & shaming concerning the accessibility of sexual materials to males under 18-21 years of age.

The green-eyed monstrous & sex hating feminists of the late nineteenth century could not have accomplished their psychological & cultural arson without fawning & pandering elements of the clergy who thrived in the mental masturbation of their harem.. oops, I mean women in the congregation fawning over them to goad them in supporting their political wills & sexual trade union agenda. Particularly in regard to keeping prostitution legal (particularly as the orphan & fallen woman trade) & the age of consent.

Never can have enough of the NON-REVISIONIST history in Mark E. Pietrzyk college course handout (excerpt):

In fact, throughout most of history, the Judeo-Christian tradition tolerated and even approved of sexual relations between adult males and girls of twelve years of age or even younger. The contemporary taboo against sex between adults and minors developed only in the late nineteenth century … The very concepts of age of consent and statutory rape did not derive from Biblical orthodoxy and ancient tradition, but rather evolved out of the same modernist conceptions …

Christian canon law followed Roman law in setting the minimum age of marriage at twelve for females and fourteen for males. The logic behind these marital age limits was that these were the approximate ages of puberty for both genders, indicating readiness for procreation.52 In ancient Rome, among both pagans and Christians, marriage at an early age was frequent. Betrothals often occurred even before puberty, although the consummation of marriage through intercourse usually did not take place until after the girl’s first menstruation. Very often, the age discrepancy of marriage partners was great. According to one historian, “the matching of a man with a woman young enough to be his daughter or even granddaughter was generally accepted.”53

One such example of betrothal between a mature male and young girl is that of St. Augustine (354-439 A.D.). At the age of thirty-one, Augustine betrothed himself to a ten-year-old girl. However, he found it impossible to wait for the girl to reach puberty so he could consummate the marriage and satisfy his sexual desires. In desperation, Augustine took a mistress, but this act only tormented him with guilt. Not long afterward, Augustine converted to Christianity and adopted a life of celibacy.54
Medieval Christianity continued to maintain the age of twelve as a minimal age for females to enter into marriage. However, even this low age limit was not absolute. Using natural law logic, Catholic authorities argued that the decisive factor which determined a child’s readiness for marriage and sexual relations was the onset of puberty, and not necessarily age as such. According to one Catholic scholar, “If it could be satisfactorily proved that puberty . . . was actually attained by the boy before the completion of his fourteenth year, or by the girl before the completion of her twelfth year, then . . . the party could enter upon a valid marriage.”55

Sexual intercourse which took place before marital age limits or puberty was not necessarily illicit or sinful. On the contrary, some popes ruled that intercourse below the age of twelve/fourteen had the effect of sealing a marriage contract, as long as such intercourse took place after the age of discretion, which was seven.56 Once intercourse had taken place, the marriage could not be annulled. In the twelfth century, Pope Alexander III ruled,
“If a girl of tender age is betrothed and delivered to her husband, and afterwards desires to marry a different man, her petition is not to be granted if her husband swears that he has had carnal knowledge of her even at the early age of eleven or twelve.”57

Thus even for very young partners, the act of intercourse bound the two of them together for life. As one Catholic scholar has written, “carnal relations between the parties seemed to indicate sufficient maturity and made up for the defect of years.”58 Sexual intercourse below the age of discretion (seven) was not a crime, but merely “invalid,” and thus, inconsequential, as under Jewish law.59 Parents arranged marriages for their pre-pubescent children during the Middle Ages for a variety of dynastic, economic, and cultural reasons.60 Such marriages were usually consummated at the age of twelve. Although physicians warned of the dangers of impregnating very young girls and implored husbands to wait until the wife reached the age of at least fourteen, such warnings usually went unheeded, and the Catholic Church continued to bless marital bonds with twelve-year-old girls.61

Although technically the consent of the child was necessary for a marriage to take place, the child was usually not in a position to challenge his or her parents and resist an unwanted union. This led to a number of abuses which went unchallenged by the Church. In 1526, the Dutch scholar Erasmus complained, “It is no uncommon case, especially in France, for a girl of scarce ten years to be married and a mother next year. . . . It seems portentous, and yet we sometimes see it, especially in Britain and Italy, that a tender child is married to a septuagenerian. . . . Yet Church laws do not rescind such nuptials. . . .”62

In later centuries, some Christian commentators would denounce sexual relations with young girls as being equivalent to rape. In the sixteenth century, canonist Egidio Bossi argued for this interpretation on the grounds that a child could hardly be considered as being in a position to give consent. However, he recommended that the age of consent be fixed at only six or seven years of age.63

At the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century… The conservatives prevailed: the age limit remained at twelve for females and fourteen for males.64

I agree with some, but not all of what you are saying. I think that certain areas of progression in “feminism” are appropriate, such as women being able to vote, work whatever job they choose, as well as being considered an equal patner in marriage.
However, I agree with some of your statements that things have gone too far. I think our society’s concept of marriage is creating lots of problems. I don’t think that humans were really meant to be monogamous- before civilization came, we weren’t. As well as the fact that men are now continually punished when a marriage sours, regardless if it was their fault or not! The extreme child support laws are very overapplied, giving some women huge leverage to ruin/control a guy’s life.. However, do you have anything positive to say about a woman who is so called “post-peak”, as a person contributing to life/society? It kind of seems like women to you only have measured worth based on being young and sexually attractive… Just an observation from a female POV.

@DAD
“If you ever become a parent, I can guarantee you that you won’t want the age of consent to be as low as 12.”
Well I am a parent and have two daughters – one is actually twelve years old.
I don’t know if she’s having sex now or not, but I’d be surprised if she ISN’T.
She is seeing boys around her age group…
When I was a teenager myself, I had sex with what are now termed ‘underage’ girls or ‘children’… (If I was 15 or 16 yrs old now, I would probably be locked up for 5 or 10 years)!
I suspect, nothing’s changed much since then (35 yrs later).
Let’s be realistic here: You cannot make laws that change nature. Nature has laws that are very rigid (including reproduction, accomplished by opposite genders of the same species engaging in some kind of sexual contact). If the two partners feel the urge to engage in this, it will happen REGARDLESS of what the feminist / religious zealot nonsense law-makers try to enforce.
The only thing the age of consent seems to achieve is the criminalization of men, (as such laws only apply to men in reality, even though they are supposed to apply equally to both genders) for doing nothing other than following one of NATURE’S laws.

So DAD, I would not have a problem at all if they restore the ‘age of consent’ back to twelve years as it was not so long ago and still is set at 12 years old in many other countries outside of the feminist ruled West.

Use your brains, or did you come down in the last shower of rain?? (Don’t be so naive).

I can see your points on everything but the age of consent thing. I think that has more to do with letting kids finish puberty before possibly becoming parents. Young teenager girls have higher risk pregnancies, and I don’t know much about male biology, but a 12 year boy probably isn’t ready to raise a kid.

I can see your points on everything but the age of consent thing. I think that has more to do with letting kids finish puberty before possibly becoming parents.

That’s irrelevant when we have effective contraception, safe and easy abortion on demand, and a welfare state.

Young teenager girls have higher risk pregnancies,

That’s actually a myth that’s been debunked. Younger teenage girls have higher risk pregenancies because in today’s society, young teenage girls who get pregnant tend to come from socially and economically deprived environments. It’s correlation, not cause.

don’t know much about male biology, but a 12 year boy probably isn’t ready to raise a kid.

Yes, that’s why boys begin puberty up to 3 years later than girls, and why historically young females were married off to older males.

To add my previous reply – there is a clear correlation between societies with high ages of consent (USA, UK) and highest teen pregnancy rates, and societies with low ages of consent (Japan -13, Spain – 13 until last year) having the lowest teen pregnancy rates. High ages of consent don’t stop teens fucking and getting pregnant, it stops older responsible men from having sex with them, men who are not only ready to raise a kid (unlike young boys) but who are LESS likely to get them pregnant (at least outside of a serious relationship).

All of your arguments are, in fact, arguments for a lower age of consent. Add to that the fact that this is an anti-feminist site, and the high feminist age of consent results in thousands of men locked up, as well as being at higher risk of false allegations, increased misandry through generational apartheid (teen girls not having experience of men outside of misandrist media representations of them) etc, then I think it’s fair to call for a lower age of consent here as an anti-feminist/men’s rights issue.

In addition, problems often attributed to teenage pregnancy, such as fetal death and family, job and financial problems in adulthood, were associated with adverse childhood experiences, but not with adolescent pregnancy itself.

If fertile women actually have more miscarriages, then it seems the idea that teen girls suffering more miscarriages, even if true, cannot be used as an argument that finding teen girls attractive is unnatural.

I’ve also read that first time pregnancies have a higher risk of miscarriage, whatever the age. This would in itself explain any greater risk of miscarriage in teen pregnancies, as such pregnancies would obviously be more likely to be first time. If you think back to the Buss chart, it would still make sense for a man to find teens attractive, as more fertile years mean less ‘time wasted’ through a miscarriage.

“1. A man before completing the sixteenth year of age, and a woman before completing the fourteenth year of age, cannot enter into valid marriage.

2. Although marriage can be validly contracted above these ages, nevertheless, let pastors take care to discourage youths from entering marriage before that age that, according to the accepted manner of the region, they are wont to enter marriage.”

[Never can have enough of the NON-REVISIONIST history in Mark E. Pietrzyk college course handout (excerpt):]

[In fact, throughout most of history, the Judeo-Christian tradition tolerated and even approved of sexual relations between adult males and girls of twelve years of age or even younger. The contemporary taboo against sex between adults and minors developed only in the late nineteenth century … The very concepts of age of consent and statutory rape did not derive from Biblical orthodoxy and ancient tradition, but rather evolved out of the same modernist conceptions …]

I am not sure that this is all true. Assuming that marriage could not be contracted until the girl was 12 there certainly would have been no approval of sex outside of marriage with younger girls. The taboo might have developed in the 19th century, but the first recorded age of consent law was in 1275 A.D. I am not certain what modernist conceptions the author is referring to since apparently the text was omitted by Andrew, so I can’t comment on that. However, modernism can’t be traced back to 1275 A.D.

[Sexual intercourse which took place before marital age limits or puberty was not necessarily illicit or sinful. On the contrary, some popes ruled that intercourse below the age of twelve/fourteen had the effect of sealing a marriage contract, as long as such intercourse took place after the age of discretion, which was seven.56]

The only truly relevant age of consent recognized by Catholics is the age of reason (age of discretion above). Incidentally, all children at or above the age of 7 should be tried as adults in courts of law.

[Thus even for very young partners, the act of intercourse bound the two of them together for life. As one Catholic scholar has written, “carnal relations between the parties seemed to indicate sufficient maturity and made up for the defect of years.”58 Sexual intercourse below the age of discretion (seven) was not a crime, but merely “invalid,” and thus, inconsequential, as under Jewish law.59]

I don’t know anything about Jewish law, but for Catholic law marriage is the determinant for whether intercourse is a crime (sin) or not. If one couldn’t be married until at least 12 years (before 1917) of age, then intercourse below age 12 would be a crime according to Catholic law.

If the sexual trade union theory is correct, then why aren’t feminists fighting to outlaw divorce and sex outside of marriage (as it was outlawed in the past)? Why didn’t they try to stop the sexual revolution of the 1960s?

Changing the laws and especially changing attitudes toward practices today which would have been considered immoral by most people in the past would be the best way to serve womens’ sexual interests.

@Shawn – Feminists are fighting to outlaw sex outside of marriage. They do this indirectly through the promotion of rape hysteria, sexual harassment laws, and the raising of the age of consent. They also do it indirectly through either supporting explicitly or remaining silent regards the Islamization of the West. Secondly, if you define a feminist as we do here – a woman who seeks to further her own agenda through social change – then many or most feminists are ‘femiservatives’. Conservative and/or Christian women who agitate openly for a return to ‘traditional’ family life, without going the indirect route of left-wing feminists. The likes of Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin, who want to criminalize wanking never mind sex outside of marriage, might not openly identify as ‘feminists’ or be regarded as such by ‘official’ left-wing feminsits, but they’re just as much the women we are fighting here as the rad fems. Women who want to impose their sexual interests upon society by force.

And if you go back to the origins of feminism, feminists were largely synonymous with Christians. Feminism grew out of the ‘Social Purity Movement’ which was a movement of mainly female Christians seeking a return to ‘traditional’ sexual values. There is loads about the origins of feminism on this site and at http://historyoffeminism.com

Why didn’t they try to stop the sexual revolution of the 1960s?

Because of a cluster of reasons. For example, the pill arriving just when the baby boomer generation was reaching adulthood and masses of young women were entering higher education for the first time. This meant that feminism was a decidedly young movement for the first and only time in its history. And yes, young women like Germaine Greer wanted to fuck the college rugby team. She still claimed later that she was raped by them. Feminists campaigned for no fault divorce because the pill meant their husbands were suddenly presented with the opportunity of fucking younger girls. I’ve explained all this hundreds of times here. The sexual revolution was out of the control of feminists. It was caused by the pill and a host of unique events all happening at the same time. Feminsits tried to present it as ‘women’s liberation’. In fact it was a sexual tsunami that they were trying vainly to make sense of let alone control.

Recent Comments

Dave { It's depressing to think - as a late 20's male - I'm already out of the running for college age girls, nevermind prime high school ones. Things don't get better with age for men; they only get worse. You get more money and status, but lose what matters most to young females: looks. I remember doing a temp job recently.... } – Nov 27, 7:56 PM

detiso { You should write more articles on peak female beauty. I share many views with you, so it's interesting to read. I find it odd how today most men are ridiculed for admitting their attraction to underage post-pubescent females. } – Nov 25, 7:32 PM

theantifeminist { @Frenchman - haha, shame aspies are unable to recognize irony, nor the valid pointing out of double standards when exhibited by the enemy. David Futrelle accused me of being a paedophile for saying that paedohysteria was a men's rights issue when he himself had a long track record of saying far more extreme things than anything I've championed here. I... } – Nov 22, 7:25 PM

Frenchman { Are not you the guy who are famous for saying that it's okay to bang 15yo old girls? Is it a men's right issue when you want? Is it paedophilia and child rape now when it suits you and not for me? This blog is made clearly by a schizoid men and probable an assberger, his insistenced on calling "aspie"... } – Nov 22, 6:25 PM

theantifeminist { If a 5 year old can not fuck, why would they allow it with a 15? both are minors, there is no legal difference at all, there is no legal difference in one of 5 and one of 15, for law and society we are a bunch of child rapist because a minor is a legal child by definition, and... } – Nov 21, 9:45 AM

theantifeminist { It is a fair analogy, because at the time of the first KKK if a black man had sexual relations with a white woman it was considered that the black had raped her, since it was inconceivable for the society that a white had a voluntary relationship with a black. Exactly like a man with a girl now. No, it's... } – Nov 21, 9:40 AM

Feldmarschall { One more thing , you say: "Do you think 5 year olds should be able to vote?" If a 5 year old can not fuck, why would they allow it with a 15? both are minors, there is no legal difference at all, there is no legal difference in one of 5 and one of 15, for law and society... } – Nov 18, 1:25 PM

Feldmarschall { It is a fair analogy, because at the time of the first KKK if a black man had sexual relations with a white woman it was considered that the black had raped her, since it was inconceivable for the society that a white had a voluntary relationship with a black. Exactly like a man with a girl now. Adolescents are... } – Nov 18, 11:40 AM

theantifeminist { I do not know what kind of girls you have known, must have been very pretty, but like most, infantilized by society, however they are not dumb, I instead in these “adolescents” I have found the most intelligent and mature people I known, however I really believe that adults are not enough prepared to vote (not even to dropping their... } – Nov 17, 10:08 PM

theantifeminist { Well, you will go to jail if you have sex with an underage girl. Also, 'jailbait' is probably the only linguistic foothold on reality left after the feminist manipulation of language that has allowed them to virtually control the entire narrative on teen sex (17 year old 'children' who only 'paedophiles' find attractive etc.) a 50’s gay would never use... } – Nov 17, 9:53 PM

Feldmarschall { IMHO 'jailbait' is probably the most aspie concept ever used and nobody noticed except me. I do not understand how WE have been able to assimilate that it a 'crime' what nature commands us, I do not want to offend anyone, but a 50's gay would never use a such type of term nor a black in the Apartheid neither... } – Nov 16, 2:23 PM

RippedOfInTrade { If there is no need for something like this, then why do you want to ban it? Checkmate, the market regulates everything } – Nov 14, 9:04 AM

Dave { Where's my jailbait dammit? >:( Where's my cute braces-wearing teeeeeeeeeeeeen ? :,( Hell, I'd be happy with a slim, age-matched 20-something at this point, but I can't even get that. Guess I have to wait until my generation of women is in their 30's and off the Chad carousel. Or are they waiting until their 40's nowadays? } – Nov 14, 2:00 AM

theantifeminist { @AnotherMan - why? As far as I know, Trump hasn't ever said anything about 'paedophiles'. As far as I know, he hasn't apologized for telling underage girls that they were pretty or he would be dating them soon either. Most paedocrites don't openly (in the public eye and in front of cameras) tell jailbait that they are hot etc. } – Nov 12, 5:56 PM

AnotherMan { I seriously believe that Donald Trump believes that a man who have sex with a underage girl is a paedophile and have underage sex is a criminal act just like feminists thing. } – Nov 09, 4:07 PM

theantifeminist { A man who made money from running beauty contests, bragged to 14 year old girls that he would be dating them at 16, and was falsely accused of child rape is now President of the United States. And the cunt he defeated was one of the women most responsible for defining girls under 18 as children internationally and off limits... } – Nov 09, 8:56 AM

Anti-Feminist Books

"With young girls Nature seems to have had in view what, in the language of the drama, is called a striking effect; as for a few years she dowers them with a wealth of beauty and is lavish in her gift of charm, at the expense of all the rest of their life; so that during those years they may capture the fantasy of some man to such a degree that he is hurried away into undertaking the honorable care of them, in some form or other, as long as they live—a step for which there would not appear to be any sufficient warranty if reason only directed his thoughts. Accordingly, Nature has equipped woman, as she does all her creatures, with the weapons and implements requisite for the safeguarding of her existence, and for just as long as it is necessary for her to have them. Here, as elsewhere, Nature proceeds with her usual economy; for just as the female ant, after fecundation, loses her wings, which are then superfluous, nay, actually a danger to the business of breeding; so, after giving birth to one or two children, a woman generally loses her beauty; probably, indeed, for similar reasons."

Elizabeth Bathory was a 16th Century Hungarian Countess and probably the most prolific serial killer and child murderer in history. She is believed to have sadistically tortured and killed over 600 young adolescent girls through pure sexual jealousy and malice. Obsessed with her fading looks, she would spend hours staring at herself in the mirror before picking out the prettiest of her retinue of young teenage maid servants to be hung up in a gibbot. She would proceed to jab at the poor girl with a sharp lance, causing her to slowly and painfully bleed to death. All the time whilst doing this, Elizabeth would scream furious obscenitites at the dying child.

– United Nations ‘Special Rapporteur on child abuse’Claimed in 2009 that there are over 4 million child porn websites worldwide that constitute a multi-billion dollar industry. An FBI expert recently stated that there were now less than a dozen commerical child porn sites in existence. While millions of children around the world still live in poverty, and thousands die every day from famine, disease and war, her UN feminist mandate is to jet around the world organizing conferences to wipe out the scourge of 17 year old ’children’ choosing to do what they want with their bodies on webcam.